In practice, outside of a landlord-related context, "rent" is almost always used in the tenant sense. It's probably safe to use it that way and only add clarification if you're using it in the landlord sense.
–
octernJul 12 '12 at 19:54

3

@octern: I don't know if that's an American perspective, but in British English, "to rent" (and indeed, "to hire") can describe both sides of the arrangement in a wide variety of contexts (vehicles, all manner of equipment, etc.). The sense becomes fixed if the verb is followed by "out" (only the owner can rent/hire out), but in practice the context invariably means there's no ambiguity anyway. In essence, both verbs often just mean to be one of the two parties involved in a rental arrangement.
–
FumbleFingersJul 12 '12 at 20:18

I think this answer is more complete than the others, so I am accepting it. It also summarizes what others have said, and provides two alternative answers to my second question.
–
Amelio Vazquez-ReinaJul 12 '12 at 20:08

May I pay you $500 a month to rent out your apartment to others for $1000 a month? In this case, "pay for renting [out] an apartment" would make sense.
–
ErikEJul 13 '12 at 1:54

@ErikE, re last line of answer, I agree it has the ambiguity you mention: there can be a landlord who owns an apartment and rents to a broker (the speaker) who in turn is landlord to actual tenant. An ambiguity I contemplated but didn't mention is a landlord who says pay for renting and means suffer anguish due to renting out.
–
jwpat7Jul 13 '12 at 14:41

+1 for that last sentence. The diametrically opposed meaning (which often also applies to hire) might look odd to non-native speakers, but in practice ambiguity is exceptionally unlikely.
–
FumbleFingersJul 12 '12 at 20:24

1

Although, I might argue that the second to last sentence, "I rented him a house" could be interpreted as "I found and rented a house for him so that he had a place to stay while he was visiting."
–
JimJul 13 '12 at 6:29

1

Yes, benefactive for phrases allow the Dative Alternation, i.e, I rented a house for him <==> I rented him a house. Provided he winds up with the house; if I just filled in the papers in his stead and somebody else lives there, I rented the house for him, but I didn't rent him a house.
–
John LawlerJul 13 '12 at 13:07

You can rent an apartment without living in it, or indeed using it at all. It would probably be a pretty good way to get rid of some of one's cash to rent an apartment and not use it, but that's a different matter.
–
Michael KjörlingJul 12 '12 at 20:22

3

You can also live in a rental apartment without, yourself, renting it!
–
ErikEJul 13 '12 at 1:56

I know that I personally would assume that if you "rent an apartment", then you are a tennant, but due to the ambiguity there's always room for doubt. But when in doubt, just add a clarification to your sentence.

The catch to this is that the tenant side is still ambiguous to the reader. Unless you explain that you are only using "i am renting" in the "tenant direction", the reader has no way of knowing that. (I don't claim to have any answer better than adding more words to clarify.)
–
JayJul 12 '12 at 20:06

Although your link and sense 3 of let at wiktionary both plainly mention rent, I'm still inclined to think of let as covering both rental and leasing. I could be wrong. I thought about mentioning let and lessor in my answer but supposed question distinguishes renting and leasing.
–
jwpat7Jul 12 '12 at 21:34

1

The tenant side does not have to remain ambiguous, if the word let is commonly used. This raises an important point. As long as certain people use the word rent to mean the landlord side as well, there will be ambiguity. People should really, distinguish this clearly by using the word let, more often. This would be the logical way to go about it.
–
TristanJul 13 '12 at 14:59

I agree with jwpat7. The singular my apartment carries the connotation that you are renting it from someone, not that you own it. Probably because most landlords have more than one apartment for rent, and most rentees only rent one at a time.
–
DanielJul 12 '12 at 22:18

@jwpat7 Could be, but I think New Yorkers know how to use "sublet" when they mean that.
–
talkaboutqualityJul 13 '12 at 9:25

@Daniel δ How could "renting out" mean that I am renting it from someone?
–
talkaboutqualityJul 13 '12 at 9:26

@talkaboutquality You can rent out what you are renting from someone.
–
DanielJul 13 '12 at 14:44

When I first read your question title, I had trouble figuring out the ambiguity -- I thought it had to do with whether your sought apartment is to be in New York, or whether you are in New York, looking for an apartment somewhere else. :)

I found it quite unambiguous, since I always thought landlords lease property, whereas tenants rent property.

I didn't think renting was ambiguous, in part because if someone were the landlord, he/she would probably write lease instead (e.g. leasing office).